4g memo
COMMISSION AGENDA MEMORANDUM Item No. 4g ACTION ITEM Date of Meeting December 12, 2017 DATE: December 5, 2017 TO: Dave Soike, Interim Executive Director FROM: Cassie Fritz, SPM Program Controls Manager SUBJECT: IDIQ contract for Buildings and Structures Architectural and Engineering Services Amount of this request: $0 ACTION REQUESTED Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to execute up to two indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for Buildings and Structures Architectural and Engineering Services. One for $700,000 with a small business subcontracting goal, and one for $300,000 as a small business set-aside, with a contract ordering period of five years (365 days with four one year options). There is no funding associated with this request. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Port of Seattle owns and maintains a large variety of facilities of varying age and condition. Building and structure projects are generally those that facilitate the efficient and safe operation of our industrial and commercial facilities, preserve the value of assets, and ensure compliance with state and local codes. These service agreements will provide Maritime, Aviation and Economic Development with subject matter expertise to support building and structure related maintenance, repair, and upgrade projects as needed to ensure ongoing operation of Port of Seattle facilities. Examples of service directives under this contract include Building condition and energy efficiency assessments Design services for new construction and renovation of existing spaces Repair and/or maintenance plans for new or existing facilities HVAC, and other utility equipment repair and replacement Permitting assistance, code interpretation, regulatory assistance recommendations Repair services in case of emergencies that may include systems or equipment failure or natural disasters Template revised September 22, 2016. COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 4g Page 2 of 3 Meeting Date: December 12, 2017 There is no funding request associated with this authorization. Individual service directives will be executed to authorize the consultant to perform specific work on the contract against approved project authorizations and within the total contract amount. The larger contract of $700,000 will have a small business subcontracting goal and the smaller contract of $300,000 will be small business directed. As Port-wide contracts, these contracts are also available to the rest of the organization. Scope of Work The IDIQ contracts will be procured according to Port policies and procedures in accordance with Resolution No. 3605, as amended, and procurement policy CPO-1. The Port will advertise and issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) that will include a contract set aside of $250,000 for small business and an additional goal for small business participation in the larger contract(s). The contracts will be written with specific not-to-exceed amounts and identify the services required. Each contract will have a contract-ordering period (during which the services may be separately authorized) of five years. The actual contract duration may extend beyond the scheduled end date in order to complete work identified in service directives authorized prior to the expiration date. Service directives may be issued during the contract-ordering period and within the total original contract value. Schedule It is estimated that the contracts will be executed by April 2018 and have afive-year Ordering period. Each service directive will specify the duration and schedule associated with the task or tasks involved. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED Alternative 1 Prepare separate procurements each time professional services are needed for specific building and structure projects. Cost Implications: Unknown; individual project authorizations and the annual approved budget expenditures, in addition to more staff time spent procuring and managing contracts. Pros: (1) Separate contracts would allow consulting firms multiple opportunities to compete for each individual project. Cons: (1) This alternative would increase overhead and administrative cost to the Port, as we would need to manage more procurement processes and contracts. (2) This alternative may add four months to each project schedule to complete the procurement process for each individual project and would negatively impact the ability to meet project and customer needs. Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016. COMMISSION AGENDA Action Item No. 4g Page 3 of 3 Meeting Date: December 12, 2017 This is not the recommended alternative. Alternative 2 Prepare Category III procurement for up to three firms for building and structural design services. Cost Implications: No greater than $1M; individual project authorizations and the annual approved budget expenditures within the total contract value. Pros: (1) This alternative ensures the Port has the necessary professional and technical resources available to assist in time-critical evaluations and delivery of future projects, and that small business participation is part of the criteria. (2) This alternative minimizes the number of procurement processes necessary for timely completion of projects and reduces overhead and administrative costs to the Port. Cons: (1) This alternative limits the opportunities for consulting firms to compete for each individual project. This is the recommended alternative. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Charges to these contracts will be from projects that will be authorized separately through established procedures. Consequently, there is no funding request associated with this authorization. Annual Budget Status and Source of Funds There is no funding request associated with this authorization. Individual service directives will be executed to authorize the consultant to perform any specific work on the contract against approved project authorizations and within the total contract amount. ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REQUEST None PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS None Template revised September 22, 2016; format updates October 19, 2016.
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.